Visually Guided Coordination for Distributed Precision Assembly Abstract

advertisement
Visually Guided Coordination for Distributed Precision Assembly
Michael L. Chen, Shinji Kume, Alfred A. Rizzi, and Ralph L. Hollis
The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
fmc, shkume, arizzi, [email protected]
Abstract
We document our initial eorts to instantiate visuallyguided cooperative behaviors between robotic agents in
the minifactory environment. Minifactory incorporates high-precision 2-DOF robotic agents to perform
micron-level precision 4-DOF assembly tasks. Here we
utilize two minifactory agents to perform visual servoing. We present a detailed description of the control and communication systems used to coordinate the
agents. To provide a suitable communications infrastructure, we describe the development of a new interagent communication system which uses low-latency
protocols carried by a commercial 100 Mb Ethernet network. Finally, we conclude by presenting experimental
results from our rst coordinated multi-agent task, the
visually guided positioning of a small medical device.
1 Introduction
The need to develop self-calibrating easily recongured automation systems coupled with the relentless
improvements in performance and reductions in size
of computational and communications hardware has
made the development of modular distributed automation systems both attractive and practical. Unfortunately the resulting distributed systems can, if not
thoughtfully designed, be dicult to program and control. To avoid this pitfall it is important that distributed systems incorporate suitable sensing capabilities, control strategies, and communications capabilities to support the eective coordination of disparate
entities.
Within the Microdynamic Systems Laboratory1 we
are developing an example of such a system called
minifactory [1]. Minifactory, which ts within the
larger conceptual framework of the Agile Assembly
Architecture (AAA), relies on collections of 2-DOF
robotic agents to form rapidly recongurable tabletop sized automation systems suitable for the precision
assembly of complex electro-mechanical products [2].
Two classes of robotic agents dominate the minifactory
environment. Courier robots operate in the plane of
1
See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/msl.
Figure 1: Photograph of the courier (lower box shaped
robot) presenting a part to the manipulator (upper
robot).
the factory oor to transport sub-assemblies and precisely position them during assembly operations, and
overhead manipulator robots perform high-precision
pick and place operations on the sub-assemblies. By
operating in close coordination, pairs of these robotic
agents can perform cooperative 4-DOF assembly tasks
traditionally performed by SCARA robots, while providing signicant advantages in terms of compactness,
precision, and exibility [3].
To realize these advantages, the individual robotic
agents involved in a cooperative assembly operation must provide and share suitable capabilities and
strategies. For minifactory agents, the sensing capabilities are organic to the individual agents, the control strategies (described in Section 2) are designed to
interconnect in a modular fashion, and the communication capabilities support distributed control strategies through the use of a semi-custom communications infrastructure (termed AAA-Net, and described
in Section 3). This paper presents our initial eorts
to instantiate one such cooperative behavior { visually
guided coordinated motion. In the example task, a
courier and manipulator coordinate their activity and
share sensing resources to ensure that parts are held at
a xed relative locations despite external disturbances.
To accomplish this task, the manipulator, equipped
with a monocular monochrome eld-rate vision system, visually acquires and tracks the part carried by
the courier. Motion of the courier is then controlled
to keep the part centered in the vision system's eld
of view, despite arbitrary motions by the manipulator.
We have thus created a single robotic visual servoing
system that spans the two agents. Figure 1 shows a
view of the the actual system, with the courier robot
presenting a part to the manipulator's vision system.
Section 2 of this paper describes the capabilities of
the robotic agents, the control strategies used to coordinate their behavior, image processing techniques,
and the organization of the communication between
the various computational tasks used to implement the
system. Section 3 describes in detail the physical communications infrastructure and the protocols used to
provide the low-latency, high-performance communication channels needed by the algorithms of Section 2.
Finally, Section 4 details our initial experiments with
the entire system.
2 Coordination Strategy
For our initial investigation of visually guided coordination in the minifactory environment, we have chosen
to undertake a simplied position regulation task. The
courier agent will carry a sub-assembly of a small medical device measuring 3 mm on a side, and the manipulator agent will observe this device through its vision
system. The task will be to keep the sub-assembly
centered within the eld of view of the camera while
the manipulator undergoes a rotation. The only information transacted between the two agents will be
commands from the manipulator indicating the velocity at which the courier should move, based on the
manipulator's visual observations.
2.1 Robotic Agents
The manipulator agent is capable of vertical (z ) and
rotational () movement. The z range of motion is
approximately 125 mm and achieves a resolution of 2
m, while the range of motion in is approximately
270 with a resolution of 0.0005. The manipulator
also incorporates a eld-rate frame grabber for image
acquisition and its end eector contains a monochrome
camera and a vacuum suction pickup device, providing
an eye-in-hand robotic conguration.
The courier agent provides motion in the x, y plane
{ both translation and a limited range of rotation. It
incorporates a magnetic position sensor device, providing 0.2 m resolution (1) position measurements [4]
and closed loop position control [5].
2.2 Agent Communication
Figure 2 shows the structure of the communication
channels between the two agents and their computa-
Figure 2: Communications within and between manipulator and courier agents.
tional processes. In this diagram, circles represent processes, and the two separate shaded areas represent the
courier and manipulator agents. Internal communication between processes on the individual agents utilize
shared memory structures, providing fast data sharing.
For the visually guided coordination task the manipulator uses three processes, in addition to the AAA-Net
server. The rst (Executor) executes low-level control,
the second (Head) interprets user-level commands and
scripts, and the third (Vision) analyzes images from
the frame grabber. The courier has a similar structure
but lacks the vision system and associated process.
2.3 Image Processing
To accomplish the visually guided coordination described above, the manipulator, which manages the
camera and frame grabber, must perform all the image processing tasks. The camera system contained
in the end eector has a monochrome CCD camera
and an adjustable two lens optic. The resulting magnication of this system was set at 0:75 so that one
pixel corresponded to approximately 10 m of motion.
Tsai's coplanar method [6] was used to calibrate the
intrinsic parameters of the camera system, as well as
the extrinsic parameters. Wilson's implementation [7]
was used to numerically optimize the parameter values
from measurements of a calibration xture.
Performing visual servoing requires both global and
local feature localization strategies. The global scheme
nds the top corners of the sub-assembly without any
initial position estimates, while the local scheme tracks
the sub-assembly at eld rate given recent position estimates. The global search begins by locating the centroid of the sub-assembly's image, providing an initial
estimate for the location of the part. Performing a
Hough transform eliminates pixel noise and allows the
use of linear regression techniques to recover the location of lines representing the part edges. As seen in
gure 3, the intersection of the lines provide accurate
Figure 4: Simplied model of visual servoing control
system.
Figure 3: Results of global search for the top corners
of the sub-assembly { the recovered center and corner
locations are marked.
positions of the top two corners of the device.
Given these estimates of corner locations, local image processing routines can track the corners at eldrate (60 Hz). We utilize the XVision package [8] to
perform these tracking tasks. The exible nature of
XVision allows programming constraints between the
two corner trackers we used. This improves robustness
of the system by allowing it to recover from transient
occlusion events. For example, if one corner tracker
fails, information from the other corner's position can
be used to reinitialize the failed tracker. Once the occlusion passes, the failed tracker can relocate the appropriate corner.
2.4 Visually Guided Control
Visually guided control was accomplished by processing image information in the manipulator agent and
sending velocity commands to the courier agent and
its controller. The vision server, as shown in Figure 2,
tracks the position of the sub-assembly at eld rate,
and in turn passes the image-plane position information to the visual servo controller running as part of
the executor process. The visual servo controller computes a desired velocity for the courier to keep the subassembly at the desired position in the image plane.
These commands are nally sent to the courier controller at eld-rate via the AAA-Net.
A simplied model of the visual servoing control
system is shown in Figure 4. This depiction emphasizes the three main components of the system: the
visual servo controller, the courier controller, and the
courier motor. The visual servo controller is implemented on the manipulator agent and can be classied
as an image-based visual servo controller since control values are directly computed from image features
[9]. In the block diagram, H encapsulates the camera
and the image processing routines used to locate and
Figure 5: Minifactory coordinate frames.
track the sub-assembly within an image. The block
labeled Gc represents the adjustable gains of the visual servoing controller { for improved performance
this includes a proportional term, as well as an integral term, which both operate on the error between the
desired and current image plane position of the subassembly. The block labeled J represents the image
Jacobian and depends on the rigid transform between
the camera coordinate frame and the courier coordinate frame. Figure 5 shows our convention for frame
placement in minifactory. Note that the frames attached to the courier and end eector depend on the
agents' current positions and are constantly recalculated, while the remaining frames are precisely located
during the factory self-calibration process.
The remaining major components of the simplied
visual servo system model represent the courier and
its controller. The dynamics of the courier motor are
approximated by a double integrator, and the courier
controller is replaced by a simplied proportionalderivative control scheme which has been modied to
accept velocity commands from the manipulator agent.
The details of courier behavior are beyond the scope
of this paper and can be found in [5].
3 Network Infrastructure
To support seamless cooperation between physically
distinct agents in the minifactory, each agent is
equipped with two network interface devices. These
Figure 6: Physical network structure.
Figure 7: Ethernet frame format used by AAA-Net.
(a) Standard IEEE-802.3 frame format. (b) AAA-Net
data format.
provide a scalable communications infrastructure
throughout the minifactory system. The rst interface connects to a network which carries non-latencycritical information, such as user commands or information destined for the factory interface tool. This
network utilizes standard IP protocols [10]. The second interface connects to a network (AAA-Net) which
carries real-time information critical to the timely coordination of activity between agents. This includes
the master-slave coordination described in Section 2
of this paper as well as other activities performed by
multiple agents transiently acting as a single machine.
tween the local-network segments. The repeater hub
allows each agent in a network segment to directly
communicate with its immediate neighbors, while the
frame relay switches allow for arbitrary daisy chaining
of the network, overcoming the topology limitations
that are fundamental to Fast Ethernet. The switches
also serve to localize communications within the factory system by not transmitting data packets destined
for local agents to the remainder of the factory and
by selectively transmitting those packets destined for
other network segments toward their destination yielding a scalable communications infrastructure2 .
3.1 Physical Network
3.2 Communications Protocol
Unlike the majority of industrial eld networks [11, 12,
13], AAA-Net makes use of commercial o-the-shelf
100 Mb Ethernet hardware. This provides access to
a wide variety of low-cost and compact hardware options. The result is i ) reduced investment in network
infrastructure hardware, ii ) simplied installation and
maintenance, and iii ) direct access to rapidly improving Ethernet technology. Unfortunately, as a result of
the CASM/CD media access rule used by IEEE 802.3
Ethernets, the timing of packet delivery is not deterministic. Thus transmission latency can not be absolutely bounded, and packet delivery can not even be
guaranteed. However, our specication for agent coordination only requires the delivery of 100 byte data
packets at a maximum rate of 1 kHz between agents
that are physically collocated. Given the maximum
agent density, we can conservatively bound the local
bandwidth needs of the entire minifactory system at
roughly 10 Mbps. By choosing to use 100 Mbps Fast
Ethernet technology [14], we are able to provide an
infrastructure that will operate well below its total capacity and thus minimize the risk of packet collisions
and the associated delays and losses in communication.
Figure 6 depicts the communications infrastructure
of the minifactory system. As can be seen, both the
AAA-Net and the global IP network are congured as
a chain of star topology local-networks, with a Fast
Ethernet repeater hub at the center of each star and
Fast Ethernet switches forming the connections be-
To facilitate a wide variety of local interactions
between agents, the AAA-Net protocol supports
both a connection-based guaranteed data transmission
scheme as well as a connection-less non-guaranteed
data transmission scheme. These services are not unlike the familiar TCP and UDP services commonly
used on IP networks, although they are signicantly
simplied to improve performance in the highly structured network environment of AAA. Figure 7 depicts
the simplied header used by the AAA-Net protocol.
For non-guaranteed communication, the type eld in
Figure 7(b) is set appropriatly, and the body of the
message is placed in the data eld. The packet is then
immediately placed on the Ethernet network with no
eort made to guarantee its delivery. This form of communication is appropriate for the exchange of rapidly
changing values, such as the velocity commands sent
from the manipulator to the courier described in Section 2, where the loss or delay of a single packet is
insignicant since additional data will follow shortly.
This same packet format is also used to implement
a connection-based guaranteed delivery protocol. The
packet type is again set, and the elds marked as
\reserved" are used by the protocol to ensure reliable
2 Note that in AAA/minifactory the bulk of high-bandwidth
communication will be between agents that are attached to the
same network segment, while the remainder will involve agents
that are typically attached to neighboring segments [2].
Gains Gc
Kp
Ki
7.0 0.0
7.0 0.005
12.0 0.0
Figure 8: Test set-up for AAA-Net latency measurements.
Number of
Agents
2
4
6
Round-trip (sec)
100 byte message 1000 byte message
mean
std
mean
std
566
20
804
22
562
19
816
34
567
21
826
38
Table 1: Measured AAA-Net round-trip times (mean
and standard deviation) for varying network loads.
delivery of the data stream. This protocol is appropriate for the exchange of larger more complex data
structures or messages that will only be sent once, and
whose receipt must be guaranteed.
3.3 Network Performance
In addition to the inter-agent cooperative behaviors
demonstrated in the remainder of this paper, we
have measured the performance of the non-guaranteed
AAA-Net protocol and underlying network hardware.
A collection of agents connected to the same network
segment exchanged messages as shown in Figure 8 at
1kHz. Data was sent from the user process on one
agent, received by another agent, and retransmitted
back to the original agent, and the round-trip time
measured. To evaluate the impact of network contention this test was performed with one, two, and
three pairs of agents communicating simultaneously.
Messages of both 100 and 1000 bytes in length were
transmitted, and the results are shown in Table 1.
From our past experience, we estimate that between
45 and 50% of the average round-trip time is spent
passing through the AAA-Net daemon process the four
times a message requires to make the complete circuit.
4 Results
The visually guided coordination experiment was composed of four major steps: automatic calibration of the
factory, presentation of a sub-assembly to the manipulator, initialization of the visual servoing system, and
movement of the manipulator's axis as a disturbance
input. Calibrating the factory provided precise coordinate transforms between various parts of the minifactory as shown in Figure 5. These transforms were
u error (mm)
mean std
-0.286 0.012
0.000 0.013
-0.167 0.017
v error (mm)
mean std
0.007 0.013
0.001 0.014
0.005 0.026
Table 2: Steady state image plane position error for the
given visual servo controller proportional and integral
gains.
needed by the visual control system as described in
section 2.4.
After calibration, the courier moved to present a
sub-assembly to the manipulator. An image was acquired and searched to initialize a pair of corner trackers. To guarantee that the trackers had time to settle,
both agents were prevented from moving for 1 second.
Figure 9 shows that the desired and measured positions of the sub-assembly, as measured by the vision
system during a typical experiment, were dierent at
this point in the experiment. While keeping the manipulator xed, the courier was allowed to move, and
as can be seen, the initial error in the position of the
sub-assembly was quickly accommodated.
After the vision system was initialized, the manipulator's axis was rotated clockwise at a constant rate
of 0.052 rad/s. This served as a disturbance to the
visual servoing system starting at 2 seconds. Table 2
shows mean and standard deviation of the visual error
signals (both u and v directions) for three dierent settings of the proportional and integral gains. Note that
with the integral term disabled (K = 0), the resulting
u axis error was much greater than the v axis error
(note that 1 pixel corresponds to roughly 0.01 mm).
The dierence in error magnitude between the axes is
a direct result of the camera conguration, since motion of the manipulator maps directly into a u motion
on the image plane. Setting K = 0:005 signicantly
reduced the error during motion, as shown in Figure
9 and Table 2, at the cost of slightly slower transient
performance.
The overall results shown in Figure 9 were encouraging. The manipulator's axis rotation caused the
courier's tangential velocity to be approximately 5
mm/s, while image plane measurements showed a standard deviation of less than 15 m in both axes of the vision system. However, the peak-to-peak error was approximately 0.04 mm in the u axis and 0.05 mm in the
v axis, corresponding to image movements of nearly
5 pixels. The courier angle plot in Figure 9 provides
one possible cause for this problem. As can be seen,
the recorded peak-to-peak motion was approximately
0.002 rad, even though the courier was commanded to
hold its orientation throughout this experiment. This
\wobbling" is believed to result from miscalibration of
the courier position sensor [4] and contributed to most
of the error.
i
i
sion assembly systems.
u pos (mm)
0.2
Desired postion
Measured position
0
Acknowledgments
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
v pos (mm)
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
courier velocity(mm/s)
Desired postion
Measured position
0.4
0
5
10
Commanded x velocity
↓
5
0
↑
Commanded y velocity
−5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
time(sec)
20
25
−3
courier theta (rad)
4
2
0
−2
manipulator theta (rad)
x 10
−1.5
−2
−2.5
−3
Figure 9: Visual servoing results for K = 7:0 and
K = 0:005, including measured image plane location
of the sub-assembly (u and v), commanded courier velocities (x_ and y_ ), and measured angular position of
the courier and manipulator.
p
i
5 Conclusion
We have documented the system level structures used
to enable coordination of distributed assembly operations in our modular precision manufacturing environment (minifactory) and presented initial results for
a visually guided task. The performance measured
in this initial experimental study has been convincing, and we are currently conducting additional experiments to more completely characterize the system.
Furthermore, we are beginning to explore additional
coordinated behaviors, including compliant precision
insertion and force control tasks. These behaviors, in
combination with extensions of the visually guided behavior, will enable the minifactory to eciently undertake a wide variety of assembly tasks and will demonstrate the viability and exibility of distributed preci-
This work was supported in part by NSF grants DMI9523156, and CDA-9503992. The authors would like
to thank Arthur Quaid, Zack Butler, Ben Brown, Jay
Gowdy, and Patrick Muir for their invaluable work on
the project and support for this paper.
References
[1] R. L. Hollis and A. Quaid. An architecture for agile
assembly. In Proc. Am. Soc. of Precision Engineering,
10th Annual Mtg., Austin, TX, October 15-19 1995.
[2] A. A. Rizzi, J. Gowdy, and R. L. Hollis. Agile assembly architecture: An agent-based approach to modular
precision assembly systems. In IEEE Int'l. Conf. on
Robotics and Automation, pages Vol. 2, p. 1511{1516,
Albuquerque, April 1997.
[3] A. Quaid and R. L. Hollis. Cooperative 2-DOF robots
for precision assembly. In Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on
Robotics and Automation, Minneapolis, May 1996.
[4] Zack J. Butler, Alfred A. Rizzi, and Ralph L. Hollis.
Precision integrated 3-DOF position sensor for planar
linear motors. In IEEE Int'l. Conf. on Robotics and
Automation, pages Vol. 4, p. 3109{14, 1998.
[5] Arthur E. Quaid and Ralph L. Hollis. 3-DOF closedloop control for planar linear motors. In Proc. IEEE
Int'l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 2488{
2493, May 1998.
[6] R. Y. Tsai. An ecient and accurate camera calibration technique for 3d machine vision. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition, pages 364{74, 1986.
[7] R. Wilson. Implementation of tsai's camera calibration method. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/rgw/Tsaimethod-v3.0b3.tar.Z.
[8] G. D. Hager and K. Toyama. X Vision: a portable
substrate for real-time vision applications. Computer
Vision and Image Understanding, 69(1):23{37, Jan.
1998.
[9] S. Hutchinson, G. D. Hager, and P. I. Corke. A tutorial on visual servo control. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 12(5):651{70, Oct. 1996.
[10] J. Postel. Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specication { RFC 791. Technical report, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Sep. 1981.
[11] Probus Home Page. http://www.probus.com.
[12] ControlNet Online. http://www.controlnet.org.
[13] WorldFIP Home Page. http://www.worldp.org.
[14] IEEE 802.3u-1995 10 & 100 Mb/s Management, October 1995. Section 30, Supplement to IEEE Std 802.3.
Download